Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Mohinder Kaur And Anr. vs Piara Singh And Ors. on 25 August, 1980
22. The attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Rajkumar Alias Rajender Singh (supra), does not appear to have been invited to the judgment of the Full Bench in Mohinder Kaur's case (supra). When the effort under the various provisions of C.P.C. is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and for adjudication of the related disputes in the same proceedings, the parties cannot be driven to different Courts or to institute different proceedings touching on different facets of the same major issue. Such a course of action would result in conflicting judgments and instead of resolving the disputes, they end up in creation, confusion and conflict.
Shri Raj Kumar Alias Rajinder Singh vs Smt. Bimla Kumari And Another on 12 November, 1990
21. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am of the view that the said judgment does not represent correct position of law.
Nawal Kishore Patel vs Most. Indrapari Devi on 24 September, 2002
18. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon several decisions in support of his contentions. Nawal Kishore Patel v. S.t. Indrapati Devi, JT 1991 (5) SC 212, deals with general proposition of law that the determination under Rule 5 of Order 22 C.P.C. cannot be treated as final, unless it was specifically put in issue.
S. Charanjit Singh And Anr. vs Bharatinder Singh And Ors. on 2 February, 1987
The purport of the same was explained by another Single Judge in S. Charanjit Singh v. Bharatinder Singh, , as under:
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Suraj Mani And Anr. vs Kishori Lal on 23 April, 1976
Suraj Mani v. Kishore Lal, AIR 1976 HP 76, relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is to the effect that the order passed under Rule 5 of Order 22, involves summary enquiry, does not operate as res judicata and is limited to the purpose of carrying on suit without any right of heirship, etc. It is not demonstrated as to how the said principle is ignored in the case on hand.
Mahendra Kumar vs Lalchand And Another on 6 February, 2001
Mahendra Kumar v. Lalchand, , is to the effect that an appeal filed by the legal heir of the deceased party does not abate on the sole ground that legatee under a will was not brought on record. It was further observed that unless and until the rights under the will were established by a competent Court of jurisdiction, the other proceedings cannot be treated as abated on the sole ground that the legatee was not brought on record as legal representative. That question does not arise in the present case. In fact, the order under revision obviates the circumstances referred to in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Mrs. Annupam Pruthi And Ors. vs Rajen Bal And Ors. on 30 August, 1988
19. The learned Counsel also relied upon Annupam Pruthi v. Rajen Bal, . This case dealt with a situation where the legal representatives of a deceased party were brought on record under Order 22, Rule 5. Subsequently an application was filed by persons claiming under a will said to have been executed by the deceased, with a prayer to recall the earlier order passed under Order 22, Rule 5. The learned Single Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court refused to recall. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, took a different view and recalled the permission granted under Order 22, Rule 5. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Division Bench and held that an order passed under Order 22, Rule 5 cannot be recalled at the instance of legatees claiming under a will. In the case on hand, such a situation does not exist. By the time the application under Order 22, Rule 5 was taken up, the natural legal heir, that is the petitioner, and the persons claiming under a will, namely Respondents 6 and 7, were before the Court and permission was granted to the latter.
1